The nub of his argument is that genetically engineered (GE) food
products, as brand new substances produced by a means that is radically
different from traditional plant breeding, are on the market illegally
because American law requires that such new products be extensively
tested before they can be sold. To do the required testing over the
extended time period required, however, would make the whole GE venture
uneconomic, so the law has been skirted by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). The skirting has been done by treating GE foods
(now generally called genetically modified organisms or GMOs, originally
meant to be a euphemism because it sounded better than “engineered”) in
the same way as we treat foods that have stood the test of time and are
simply generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Not only is it manifestly untrue that GMOs are GRAS, but through the
discovery process in a lawsuit that he and a number of very
knowledgeable scientists initiated, Druker learned that FDA
administrators overruled their own scientific experts in declaring them
GRAS. That is to say, GMOs have been treated as though they were no
different from new plant varieties created by traditional methods when
it is not true and the decision-makers at the FDA have known all along
that it is not true. They are not recognized as safe even within the
FDA, itself.

The big problem, according to Druker, is that in its early
development stage in the 1980s, bioengineering was seen by the Reagan
administration as the next big technological wave that the United States
could catch, similar to the digital electronics revolution, that would
help keep the country in the world economic forefront. With this
business booster mindset, political leaders, in league with the
avaricious owners of companies like Monsanto, have allowed politics and
greed to trump science, and, indeed, to trump existing U.S. food safety
law, in furtherance of the dangerous GE food agenda. Furthermore,
blinkered members of the science community, who have apparently put
their wetted fingers to the wind and have gone along enthusiastically
with what can only be characterized as massive scientific fraud, have
abetted them.
One can hear a good summary of Druker’s book in the excellent
interview of the author by George Noory on the latter’s Coast to Coast
AM program.

Many of the highlights are there, except that Druker doesn’t have
time to go into the section of the book entitled “Another Continuing
Trend: Research that Produces Disturbing Results Produces Nasty
Attacks.” The danger of GMO foods is not just theoretical. It seems that
almost every time GMO food products have been subjected to any sort of
serious scientific test—of the type that would be required of them but
for their illegal GRAS-pass, and of the type that the general public has
been led to believe they routinely receive but don’t—these “disturbing
results” tend to show up:

Male rats fed a variety of Bt maize
developed by Monsanto for the Egyptian market differed from those fed
the non-GE control maize in organ and body weights and in blood
chemistry, despite the fact the control plants were the parental variety
and were grown next to their engineered relatives. The differences were
detected after 45 days and after 91 days, several toxic effects were
measured, including abnormalities in liver cells, excessive growth of
intestinal membranes, congested blood vessels in the kidneys, and damage
to cells that are essential to sperm production.

Feeding another type of Bt maize to both young and old mice was
associated with a marked disturbance of the immune system and of
biochemical activity.

When mice were fed for five consecutive generations on GE triticale
(a hybrid of wheat and rye) their lymph nodes enlarged and the number of
some important immune system cells significantly decreased.

Rabbits that consumed GE soybeans had adverse changes in enzyme function in their hearts and kidneys.

Mice that ate GE soybeans for two years displayed indications of acute liver aging in comparison to those fed on non-GE soy. *

More information on the subject can be found at http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/.
Druker has many examples of the nasty attacks that been made upon
scientists who have come up with such disturbing findings. One such
example can be found online
in the case of world-renowned expert on food safety, Dr. Arpad Pusztai.
In Britain, where Dr. Pusztai lives and works, the authorities are as
much under the thrall of the biotech promoters as they are in the U.S.
The British version of GRAS is the principle of substantial equivalence,
which is invoked for GMO foods there and gives them a pass from
long-term testing before they are allowed on the market. Dr. Pusztai was
suspended from his position at the prestigious Rowett Institute for
objecting to that policy on national television because of what he had
found with his own tests.

The Central Role of the News Media

From the JFK assassination to 9/11 and many other importantmatters that we have lookedinto,
it all comes down to the corruption of the opinion-molding profession,
primarily the news media. The first few paragraphs of Druker’s Chapter
Eight, entitled “Malfunction of the American Media” (subtitled “Pliant
Accomplices in Cover-up and Deception”) are so revealing and tell such a
familiar tale from my own experience that I must repeat them here in
their entirety:

As I walked to lunch on May 27, 1998, I was elated. The
Alliance for Bio-Integrity and the International Center for Technology
Assessment had just held a press conference at the National Press Club
in Washington, D.C. announcing the filing of their lawsuit against the
FDA; and it seemed there was good reason to be buoyant. The conference
had been well-attended, with numerous print reporters and camera crews
from the major national TV networks. I and other speakers had described
the many flaws of the FDA’s policy on GE foods and emphasized that,
despite its pretensions the agency was not regulating these products in
the slightest degree. We had also driven home the fact that among the
plaintiffs were nine well-credentialed scientists, whose participation
refuted the FDA’s claim that GE foods are “Generally Recognized as
Safe.”
Consequently, I expressed great optimism about the kind of media
coverage I was expecting to the friends who had attended the conference
and were accompanying me to a restaurant. But one of them didn’t share
my optimism. She had extensive experience with the press and during the
conference she heard a sobering statement from a member of the media
that she felt I needed to hear as well. She had been sitting next to a
correspondent for one of the national TV networks. He regularly provided
reports during the national news about important stories originating
from Washington, and his camera crew was taping the conference. Toward
the end of the session, he turned to her and remarked: “This is an
important story. It should be widely told. But it won’t be. I’ll file my
report this afternoon, but it’s not going to go any further. It won’t
make it onto the evening news, and it won’t be on the morning news,
either.”
When I heard this, I found it hard to believe. Why would such an
important story not be broadcast? After all, it was vitally relevant to
all Americans because they were regularly consuming GE foods without
their knowledge. Didn’t they have a right to know that, contrary to the
assertions of their proponents, these products have not been carefully
tested and that the claims about their safety were based exclusively on
dubious assumptions? Moreover, shouldn’t the sham about general
recognition of safety be exposed? Shouldn’t citizens be informed that,
in reality, there was not a consensus among experts that GE foods are
safe—and that nine were so concerned about the risks that they were
suing the FDA?
So, while my optimism was somewhat tempered, I maintained a belief
that although forces at that particular news network might obstruct the
reporting of our story, conditions would be different at the others—and
that they and the rest of the media would dutifully convey the key facts
to the public.
But I was wrong. Despite the presence of their crews at the press
conference, none of the national television networks reported on our
lawsuit. Nor was it mentioned in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal—the
nation’s three most influential newspapers. National Public Radio
didn’t even refer to it. Further, although reports on the suit did
circulate through some news services and appear in several newspapers,
they furnished no grounds for celebration. While they noted that
scientists were included among the various plaintiffs, they didn’t
reveal that there were nine of them, and they failed to point out that
the involvement of so many experts undermined the FDA’s claim about
general recognition of safety.
In fact, the articles did not even report the basic message that our
scientists were communicating, even though it was amply conveyed by
speakers at the press conference and the supplementary documents we
provided. Consequently, readers had no idea that these experts had
branded the FDA’s policy as scientifically unsound, warned about the
unusual potential of GE food to cause unintended harmful effects, and
called for rigorous safety testing. Moreover, in blacking out our
scientists’ assertions, some dramatic ones had to be disregarded. For
instance, during the question and answer session, the molecular
biologist Liebe Cavalieri
was asked to comment on the fact that many eminent scientists declare
genetic engineering to be substantially the same as traditional
breeding. As noted in Chapter 4, his answer was not timid. He denounced
their behavior as “disgraceful”—and their claim as a “sham.” He then
added, “And you can quote me on that.”
But none of the articles did. Instead, they quoted several spurious
assertions from proponents of GE foods issued in response to our suit.
One of the most outrageous was from Stephen Ziller, vice president of
the Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose members produce most of the
name brand foods and beverages sold in the US. In extolling the safety
of GE foods and the soundness of FDA policy, Ziller painted the
plaintiffs as “opponents of progress and science-based research.” In
light of the fact that the plaintiffs were actually suing the FDA for
ignoring science-based research, and were demanding that more research
be performed, this accusation was absurd. But due to the deficient
reporting, readers could not discern its absurdity—and many were
probably being taken in by it. For the same reason, many may have also
been deluded by another absurd assertion, made by an FDA official to
trivialize the differences between GE foods and conventional ones that
our call for labeling was like demanding that labels be placed on grapes
picked by non-union workers.

If you have watched the Noory interview of Druker, you know that he
now regards the call for GMO labeling as an unacceptable half-measure
for dealing with the problem. Though he agrees that the various state
campaigns for labeling have performed an important educational function,
“…labeling is technically appropriate,” he writes, “for foods that are
legitimately on the market, and if a group of foods are instead being
marketed illegally, the proper remedy is not to label them but to remove
them. In fact, placing the emphasis on labeling implies that the foods
are on the market legally and obscures the reality that they’re being
sold in violation of the law.”

Pro-GMO Propaganda Barrage Intensifies

EIGHTY-EIGHT percent of scientists polled by the Pew Research Center in January said genetically modified food is generally safe to eat.
Only 37 percent of the public shared that view. The movement to require
genetically modified food products to be labeled both reflects and
exploits this divergence between informed opinion and popular anxiety.
Mandated labeling would deter the purchase of genetically modified
(GM) food when the evidence calls for no such caution. Congress is right
to be moving toward a more sensible policy that allows companies to label products as free of GM ingredients but preempts states from requiring such labels.

Lawmakers and voters in some states have considered requiring GM
labeling, but only a few have chosen to label, and none have yet
started. That’s good: The GM-food debate is a classic example of
activists overstating risk based on fear of what might be unknown and on
a distrust of corporations. People have been inducing genetic mutations
in crops all sorts of other ways for a long time — by, for example, bathing plants in chemicals or exposing them to radiation. There is also all sorts of genetic turbulence in traditional selective plant breeding and constant natural genetic variation.
Yet products that result from selective gene splicing — which get
scrutinized before coming to market — are being singled out as high
threats. If they were threatening, one would expect experts to have
identified unique harms to human health in the past two decades of
GM-crop consumption. They haven’t. Unsurprisingly, institutions such as
the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization have
concluded that GM food is no riskier than other food.

Promoters of compulsory GM food labeling claim that consumers nevertheless deserve
transparency about what they’re eating.
But given the facts, mandatory labeling would be extremely misleading
to consumers — who, the Pew polling shows, exaggerate the worries about “Frankenfood”
— implying a strong government safety concern where one does not exist.
Instead of demanding that food companies add an unnecessary label,
people who distrust the assurances that GM food is safe can buy food
voluntarily labeled as organic or non-GM.

This isn’t just a matter of saving consumers from a
little unnecessary expense or anxiety. If GM food becomes an economic
nonstarter for growers and food companies, the world’s poorest will pay
the highest price. GM crops that flourish in challenging environments
without the aid of expensive pesticides or equipment can play an
important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing
world — if researchers in developed countries are allowed to continue
advancing the field.

Even if the poll with which The Post leads off its editorial
is accurate—a big “if” considering the general probity of this
newspaper and the mainstream news media generally—they hardly lead to
the conclusions that The Post would have us make. In the first
place, there is a great gulf between “generally recognized as safe to
eat,” and “generally safe to eat.” I can’t imagine anyone who calls
himself a scientist even answering such a vague question. What does it
mean? Does it mean that nine times out of ten it won’t kill you…or maybe
99 times out of a hundred? It sounds to me a lot like the assurances we
have had about the human consumption of dog food. It your toddler gets
into the dog food and eats some of it you don’t need to call 911, but
it’s not a good idea to have it in your regular diet. I don’t know about
you, but if a product is no better than “generally safe to eat,” at the
very least I’d like to know if it’s in the food offered for sale so I
can prudently avoid it.

Second, the fact that a person is a scientist doesn’t mean that he
knows much of anything about GMOs. Almost all scientists are narrow
specialists. I dare say that if you take the time to read Steven
Druker’s book you will be much better informed about GMOs than around
99% of the scientists in the world. If scientists as a group are,
indeed, more inclined than the general public to give their blessings to
GMOs, it is simply an indicator of how successful the selling campaign
has been that genetic engineering represents scientific progress. Also,
if a scientist reads newspapers and listens to the news more than the
average person—which is likely—he is likely to be more pro-GMO than the
average person. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if polls should show, for
instance, that scientists are more inclined than the average person to
believe that TWA 800 crashed because of an explosion in the fuel tank
and that all the destruction of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was
caused by a truck bomb in the street, well away from the greatest
damage, both of which are the government position trumpeted by the news
media. What we are looking at here is not a comparison of the uninformed
to the well-informed but to the misinformed, which a person is
certain to be on the subject of GMOs and much else if his opinions are
formed by consuming the output of the mainstream news media, a hazardous
product if there ever was one.

And think of the contempt for public opinion that we see on display here. Sixty-three percent of the people in the country, The Post
tells us, believe that it is not safe to eat GMO foods. Yet the
newspaper is in favor of depriving them of the knowledge that they are
even eating such foods.

Finally on that poll, it’s really quite chilling to think that 12 percent of scientists believe that GMOs are generally not
safe to eat, in spite all the propaganda to which they, probably even
more than the rest of us, have been subjected. One can take it to the
bank that there is a disproportionate representation among that group of
people, like the late Dr. Cavalieri or Dr. Pusztai, who are real
experts on the subject. What it means, at the very least, is that GMOs
are not generally recognized as safe in the scientific community and
that it is therefore illegal for the FDA to allow them on the market
without proper testing.

The Post invokes the authority of the National Academy of
Sciences in favor of GMOs, but if one learns anything at all from
Druker’s book it is that the NAS has been every bit as much as corrupted
at the top by the GMO promoters as has the FDA. And like the scientific
experts within the FDA, there are numerous informed members of the NAS
who take strong exception to the position that the NAS has taken.
Concerning the supposed declaration that the World Health
Organization has determined that GMOs are “no riskier” than traditional
foods, Druker has this to say:

But in reality, the WHO has stated that “it is not
possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods” and
that their safety should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, the WHO noted that while safety assessments are not required
for “traditional” foods, most national authorities require them for
bioengineered products—and that one of its objectives is to assist in
the process.

The editorial’s concluding tug at liberal heartstrings by invoking the
promise of genetically engineered foods to feed the world’s hungry is
just a familiar red herring. In the first place, Druker reminds us that,
by law, food products are different from drugs when
it comes to FDA approval. Specific medications are not consumed by
everyone, and those taking them knowingly balance the risks against the
potential benefits. Any possible benefit of GMO food products either for
people in Third World countries or in terms of cheaper foods at home by
allowing more laborsaving techniques in cultivation are, in a strict
sense, irrelevant to the question of food safety.

Having said that, the characterization of GMOs as a boon to the Third
World is a sham, we learn from Druker. The promise of greatly increased
crop yields has not materialized, and, in fact, by interfering with the
time-tested method of saving the seeds of the best-performing plants
the bioengineering system very likely lessens the long-term prospects
for improved plant yields. The use of GMOs in Third World Countries also
subjects them to the same—or worse—ecological dangers that they do here
in the United States, an important topic of Druker’s book that goes
beyond the scope of this review. Requiring farmers to purchase new seeds
from companies like Monsanto every year instead of allowing them to
plant saved seeds also increases farming costs.

Like the informed members of the NAS and the key scientists within the FDA, and, indeed, even within Monsanto, the experts at The Post know differently from what is in the editorial. More Druker:

Rick Weiss, a science reporter with The Washington Post,
called me shortly after the [National Press Club] conference and
interviewed me extensively. He requested that I fax him copies of the
key [FDA] memos and that I also tell him how to contact several of our
scientist-plaintiffs. As he prepared his story, we spoke several more
times; and I had high hopes that his report would initiate a major
breakthrough. But when the article
finally ran, I was shocked—and deeply disappointed. There was no
mention of the FDA memos, no quotes from our scientist-plaintiffs, and
no indication that many experts had serious concerns about the potential
toxicity of GE foods. Equally egregious, although the article noted
that a lawsuit had been initiated against the FDA to compel safety
testing, it termed the plaintiffs “activists,” with no hint that the
group included nine knowledgeable life scientists.
I was just about to phone Weiss and demand to know why he had failed
to include the critical information he had gathered when he phoned me.
He said he knew that I was very disappointed, and he wanted me to
understand that he was disappointed too. As he explained what had
happened, I began to feel sorry for him. The article he wrote had
exposed the FDA fraud, quoted from the memos of the scientific staff,
and also quoted scientists who were plaintiffs in our lawsuit. But his
editor refused to let it stand—and demanded deletions and revisions.
Weiss objected, but the editor was adamant. So, with the editor’s active
participation, substantial excisions and revisions were made, and the
article that the public read was far from the one Weiss had intended to
produce.

Now, as you read their recent editorial, you see why it was so
important that Weiss’s original revealing article be replaced by its
mendacious, bowdlerized substitute. Had they not called the plaintiffs
“activists” instead of the esteemed scientists that they were they could
hardly continue to play on the theme of “activists” versus science, as
they continue to do, calling the controversy, “a classic example of
activists overstating risk based on fear of what might be unknown and on
a distrust of corporations.”

My confidence in Druker’s message has only grown as the news media
almost daily show how accurately he has portrayed them in his chapter on
their “malfunction.” As my confidence in Druker has grown, so too has
my fear and concern grown. He tells us how much more we have learned
about the utter unpredictability of the results of such gross genetic
tampering since the 1980s, when the bioengineering movement was
developing its head of steam, but all the new warning signs have been
ignored at the highest levels of government decision-making. The GMO
juggernaut just plunges heedlessly ahead as if on autopilot.

When I wrote my poem “Boomerang”
back in the 1970s, with its vague foreboding about the course of
technology, I had in mind some cataclysm related to nuclear physics—and
the Fukushima disaster keeps reminding us that I might be right—but
after having read Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, I now fear that the disaster might just as easily have its origin in the field of molecular biology.
* I have not provided page numbers because I used the Kindle version,
which, instead of page numbers corresponding to those in the book, has
its own pinpoint locations. Readers wishing to verify the quotes in the
printed version may do so from the quote’s context; with a Kindle it’s
easily done with a word search, which is why I left out the Kindle
location.

TRADCATKNIGHT VIDEOS!

TCK Youtube Channel

TRADCATKNIGHT- TOP 3 CATHOLIC YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."